From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <keith.wiles@intel.com> Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F5D8D87 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:25:25 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Apr 2018 08:25:24 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,465,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="51768929" Received: from fmsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.203]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2018 08:25:23 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx155.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.71) by FMSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:25:23 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.69]) by FMSMSX155.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.168]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 08:25:22 -0700 From: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> CC: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] checkpatch: don't complain about SPDX tag format Thread-Index: AQHT1phks2nS5rnBSkWNB/4YAMT6m6QF+kqAgAACEYCAALH3gIAAUjqAgAAaiYA= Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:25:22 +0000 Message-ID: <A0448D3A-0997-410E-B5D3-7F4326965C49@intel.com> References: <20180417214919.8246-1-stephen@networkplumber.org> <4245883.kl7A9e8lPX@xps> <20180418085605.GA111744@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <2245312.U4dFV0f5su@xps> In-Reply-To: <2245312.U4dFV0f5su@xps> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.252.140.21] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <30E1E23AD797AE4EB971945309BED659@intel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] checkpatch: don't complain about SPDX tag format X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:25:26 -0000 > On Apr 18, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote: >=20 > 18/04/2018 10:56, Bruce Richardson: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:19:07AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> 18/04/2018 00:11, Scott Branden: >>>> On 18-04-17 03:06 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>>>> 17/04/2018 23:49, Stephen Hemminger: >>>>>> IMHO would have been better to use the kernel SPDX style and >>>>>> keep the check but that appears to be a minority opinion. >>>>>=20 >>>>> I think it is better to work on checkpatch itself. >>>>> When defining our SPDX style, Linux one was not definitive. >>>>> Do you think we can ask the Linux community to support our SPDX style= ? >>>>>=20 >>>> I think it better to simply follow the Linux community defacto style=20 >>>> rather than go your own way. >>>=20 >>> But our way is better! :) >>> And it has been decided in the Technical Board. >>>=20 >>=20 >> As a general issue, I think we could do with having our own checkpatch-l= ike >> script for performing addition DPDK-specific code-checks *after* Linux >> checkpatch ones. That is, reuse Linux check patch checks as much as >> possible, but have other checks too. I too believe we need to support our own checkpatch to better detect and fi= x DPDK specific issues. >=20 > +1 to call more scripts in checkpatches.sh. > We need to find the right language to do code checks. > Coccinelle looks to be a good candidate for some checks. >=20 >> For example, check for use of strcpy or strncpy (or snprintf with "%s") = and >> suggest replacing with strlcpy. If we did have our own extension script,= we >> could put our own SPDX format check there too. >>=20 >> Thoughts, or any volunteers to look into this? >=20 > I am not volunteer to start the work but I would be glad to contribute la= ter. >=20 > Any motivated volunteer? Regards, Keith